Infallible list of infallible teachings

[Eufrosnia]

“Faith and morals” are pretty broad categories. If I open the CCC, don’t you think anything my eyes read there will fall into either or both of those categories?

Yes, and therefore all declared teaching in the CCC will be infallible. You will sometimes have to read the footnotes to make sure of the context in things that do not sound declarative to make sure that it was part of a declaration and not a discussion.

The CCC does also have some recommendation type instructions as well. So things that say “We believe that it may be well to do x,y,z here” etc. These are not infallible of course but they too require assent of the will (as in obedience and respect).

But you are certainly right. Almost all of the catechism contains infallible teachings.

 

[Koineman]

It helps the development of Truth over the course of the era of the Church as it applies to the increasingly complicated world. It establishes areas where the “rehashing” of doctrine is no longer considered. Examples? Canon of Scripture, Trinity, Real Presence, Baptism etc.

How? If what the Church teaches regarding faith and morals is already infallible without explicitly pronouncing it so, as others here seem to be saying (see post #151), can’t that fact alone help the development of truth as well as the other areas you mention?

And it provides evidence to anyone who wishes to see that the Church, guided by the HS does not reverse it’s position through the centuries on these doctrine. **This helps reveal the Church for what it is.
**

I’m not sure I get this. If the Church wants to provide evidence that she doesn’t change her position through the centuries, then all she has to do is simply not change her position. If she wants to restate something to make sure people know that the teaching hasn’t changed, well, then, according to what I’ve read in this thread, she can do so infallibly simply by teaching on faith and morals.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m not sure I get this. If the Church wants to provide evidence that she doesn’t change her position through the centuries, then all she has to do is simply not change her position. If she wants to restate something to make sure people know that the teaching hasn’t changed, well, then, according to what I’ve read in this thread, she can do so infallibly simply by teaching on faith and morals.

To be quiet honest, this “proof” that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church really does not work (no disrespect to Philthy). If the Church decided to do that by just not saying anymore new things, we would not know anyway. The Church not changing its doctrines is not proof that the doctrines were true to begin with.

So this is a classic mistake Catholics make sometimes. The Church comes first. Since it comes first, the justification and proof must already exist before assent. The fact that it taught the same thing without contradicting it over centuries does not really convince anyone.

But importantly, do you have the answer to your question on this thread now or are you still confused about the process and lists?

 

[Koineman]

The test is to figure out if it is being taught. If you have read an encyclical for an example, you will notice that there are discussions before conclusions. The discussions are like an argumentation giving reasons for the conclusion. The argumentation is not necessarily infallible and neither are these propositions considered teaching.

The teachings are declared as conclusions, usually using words like “The Church declares, defines, binding under guilt of sin” etc. It is that distinction that the article you cited is addressing.

So in short, all teachings of the Church are infallible. The discussions of reasons for declaring them are not. This also means, for Catholics, that even if the reasons for a conclusion are wrong, the teaching would still be true and it would mean that there exists another reason for it to be true.

Thanks for this explanation. It makes sense. It does lead to another question, though: What is the point of the pope speaking ex cathedra if all church teachings are infallible anyway?

 

[Koineman]

To be quiet honest, this “proof” that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church really does not work (no disrespect to Philthy). If the Church decided to do that by just not saying anymore new things, we would not know anyway. The Church not changing its doctrines is not proof that the doctrines were true to begin with.

So this is a classic mistake Catholics make sometimes. The Church comes first. Since it comes first, the justification and proof must already exist before assent. The fact that it taught the same thing without contradicting it over centuries does not really convince anyone.

But importantly, do you have the answer to your question on this thread now or are you still confused about the process and lists?

I don’t have much of an answer, though I have gleaned some things are helpful. OTOH, there has been some confusion, too–for example, your disagreement with Philthy.

But that’s okay. The thread has not been a total waste of time, and it’s high time that I move on to see what else is going on in other threads here.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Thanks for this explanation. It makes sense. It does lead to another question, though: What is the point of the pope speaking ex cathedra if all church teachings are infallible anyway?

Oh good question. So there is a distinction between nature of the truths in the teachings i.e. whether it was formally revealed by God : Dogma or true as a result of logical/historical necessity due to such Dogma: Definitively Proposed.

The ex-cathedra statements are pronounced by the Pope and also imply that the doctrine is formally revealed by God. Dogma can also be pronounced by Councils (has to be approved by Pope) or the Ordinary Magesterium (also needs to be approved by Pope).

The difference with ex-cathedra statements is that the Pope does not need anyone else to necessarily agree with him on the matter. He can propose a Dogma even if the entire Church would disagree with the Dogma.

Now the “Definitively Proposed” class of teachings can also be declared someday in the future as Dogma. Papal Infallibility is one such example. It was Definitively Proposed till it was declared Dogma at Vatican I.

Both Definitively Proposed doctrine and Dogma are infallible and require assent of Faith.

 

[Philthy]

Catholics are in no position to criticize Protestants for multiple conflicting interpretations, because they disagree on things as well. Until the Catholic Church is 100% free of all disagreement and varying interpretations, then, and only then, will you have the right to criticize Protestants for their disagreements. Until then, it’s the pot calling the kettle black and, therefore, unworthy of a response.

Not exactly - this is projection on your part. Protestants frequently make the mistake you are making above: since you have no authority over the individual private interpretation of Scripture, you then treat every individual opinion of Scripture as an individual authority, and your theology allows and promotes this. There is no such thing, however, in Catholicism. The opinion of an individual, non-authoritative Catholic does not constitute anything with respect to the Catholic faith. Catholics have a teaching authority through which the faith has been discerned, protected and communicated. This authority has produced the Catechism and many official documents to identify the Catholic faith. There is no “disagreement and varying interpretations” in these sources, no “multiple conflicting interpretations” within the Church. The Catechism is an incredible statement of the faith and unity for the Church and it is vastly superior in depth and breadth to anything else Christianity has put forth IMHO. But to return to my point:
your pointing out that individual Catholics disagree regarding the teachings of the Church is in no way comparable to the disagreements between individual Protestants. The teaching authority of the “Catholic Church is 100% free of all disagreement and varying interpretations”, and completely unified regarding the faith (CCC)but the individual members of the Church (in particular those with no teaching authority ) - due to ignorance, laziness, pride or attachment to sin - are not.
Comparing individual Protestant interpretations - which are inherently valid among SS adherents - with errant individual Catholic interpretations - which are in direct conflict with the Catholic faith (communicated through the Magisterium) and which have no standing in the Church whatsoever - is true folly on your part.

Blessings!

 

[Eufrosnia]

I don’t have much of an answer, though I have gleaned some things are helpful. OTOH, there has been some confusion, too–for example, your disagreement with Philthy.

Well it is not that I disagree with Philthy on the teaching of infallibility and guidance of the Holy Spirit, but it is rather with what he claims as evidence to demonstrate it.

Just because the Church held teaching constant, it would not prove to us that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit unless we held that its teachings itself were true. I just wanted to clarify that the unchanging nature of teaching is not an indicator that the teachings are necessarily true.

So the assent, as a Catholic, is therefore first to the Church before trying to make sense of its teaching. I only wanted to clarify that.

 

[Filioque]

Thanks for this explanation. It makes sense. It does lead to another question, though: What is the point of the pope speaking ex cathedra if all church teachings are infallible anyway?

Papal Infallibility as you may already know and possibly have forgotten is an Extraordinary Charism, not something that is invoked on a daily basis. Historically it has been used when there have been important issues that needed to be answered, or proclaimed, typically when there has been a question that needs to be defined, but does not warrent an entire Council to be called. While the Popes have typically taken the council of Cardinals and bishops around the world they need not have.

In the case of Pope Pius XII and the Marian dogma he defined in 1950, we see prior to the solemn definintion that there was a controversy, he did seek the (name removed by moderator)ut from the bishops around the world as to what had always been believed, and if it was needed or opportune. While it was not required of him, Popes don’t simply make infallible pronouncements off the cuff historically.

Most importantly the Catholic Church defines the extraordinary charism of Papal Infallibility as an action of God protecting His Chruch, and not something the Pope can just do because he feels like making an infallible statement.

BTW, what is your understanding of when a Papal pronouncement is infallible or is not? Not an open book question, just want to know.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I asked first. Why not just answer it?

Perhaps you missed the link I offered.

Why not answer my questions?

 

[Philthy]

I’m not sure I get this. If the Church wants to provide evidence that she doesn’t change her position through the centuries, then all she has to do is simply not change her position.

It is not merely that the teaching doesn’t change, it is that the teaching remains true. It’s one thing to be a merely human institution - like, say, a particular denomination from the 16th century - and to claim to hold the true Gospel - based upon an interpretation of Scripture and a sense of the HS guiding you - and to proceed to articulate some of those alleged truths. It is quite another, however, for those truths to withstand the test of time centuries later. Time has a way of eventually catching up with half truths, and when it does those who professed them as truth are seen for who they truly are.
The CC has professed the faith for over 1900 years and it’s truths are the same throughout time and remain valid, relevant and defensible. The veracity of those truths , which by virtue of the nature of Truth itself, do not change points toward the Church as the “pillar of truth”.

 

[Philthy]

Well it is not that I disagree with Philthy on the teaching of infallibility and guidance of the Holy Spirit, but it is rather with what he claims as evidence to demonstrate it.

Just because the Church held teaching constant, it would not prove to us that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit unless we held that its teachings itself were true. I just wanted to clarify that the unchanging nature of teaching is not an indicator that the teachings are necessarily true.

So the assent, as a Catholic, is therefore first to the Church before trying to make sense of its teaching. I only wanted to clarify that.

I hope my post above clarifies my previous comments on the “unchanging nature of teaching” as helping to reveal the Church for what it is.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

On my own I wouldn’t mind, but in a forum like this? We’d get nowhere. I’ve seen it happen before: One side quotes a church father that allegedly supports his view, and then the other side fires back a contradictory quote and/or claims that the particular church father is being taken out of context, etc. So saying merely that I “don’t want to refer to the fathers” is oversimplifying, misrepresentative, and ignoring this explanation of mine, which I have already given in another post.

OK, let’s. I’ll give you my email. I’ll make note here as to whether you agree.

I doubt that seriously. But in regard to the tone of this comment, I suggest you read and meditate on 1 Cor. 13.

We’ll see when we talk about the fathers on our own.

Nothing uncharitable intended. For reasons in response below it seems like you were being evasive.

Really? Why, then, did I quote/make reference to NT writings elsewhere in this thread. I really have no idea where you’re getting this from.

I was speaking about your conversation with me (May 13, 12:13 pm) where you said: “that would require a lengthy, in-depth analysis of writings of the church fathers, not to mention Scripture. Both sides will produce texts that they allege support their view, so we’d get nowhere.” That would be where I’m getting it from. You’ll notice you eschewed citing Scripture like the fathers and for the same reasons.

Well, first of all, SS does not speak against STC, at least not in one sense. SS does not militate against tradition or the church. Anyone who uses SS to justify abandonment of church and tradition either doesn’t understand it or is distorting it. SS says that tradition and the church are not infallible, and that the only infallible rule is Scripture, which means that both the Church and tradition are subject to Scripture. So it does acknowledge all three (STC), but not the T and C in the way that the RCC defines them.

I met your challenge and provided as much evidence as you would accept at this time that STC as defined by the CC was the preexisting position of the Church East and West at the time of the Reformation protest against it. Since you haven’t disputed two summaries of Christian doctrine, the teachings of the Councils, and the EOC reaction to SS I can only conclude you concede the point. So by the very nature of a discussion (not a dictate) it is for you to show me why I am rationally compelled to abandon STC in favor of SS.

Yes, SS says “tradition and the church are not infallible.” And STC says that all three organically-related are. But STC as the CC defines it is the preexisting position which those who advocate SS must address to show why one is rationally compelled to abandon it and adopt SS. The factual question is still before us. Which method did God choose to hand on his word: the preexisting teaching and practice of STC or the Bible alone.

It does militate against the preexisting understanding of STC, because STC functioned in the CC for 1500 yrs in a combined and interrelated way to hand on the word authoritatively.

SS–and you have yet to address this issue squarely–does not mean “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.” It means, by of the nature of reading a text, my interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 is the only and sufficient rule of faith. So again the factual question: is this what is taught and portrayed by the NT authors taken as a whole, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils so that it is more reasonable to abandon STC?

I prefer to go straight to the source: Scripture itself. Regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 makes this all too clear. Since Scripture makes the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work, nothing else is needed in terms of revelation. That is clearly the concept of sufficiency. If something else were needed, then the phrase thoroughly equipped for every good work is not true.

I also go to the source, as the Church has for 2000 yrs: the word of God handed on by STC.

But look, you’re passing over the fathers for the moment because, like Scripture “both sides will produce texts . . .” Yet you nonetheless now launch into Scriptural evidence to answer our question.

Alright, let’s analyze 2 Tim–in context.

In 2 Tim 3:14 Paul tells Timothy to remain faithful to what he learned likely from his own mother and grandmother (1:5) and no doubt from Paul’s preaching, which earlier (2:2) he told Timothy to share orally with others who should in turn share it orally with yet others (also 1 Thess 1:8). After this in (3:15) he says “AND from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures” which could only refer to books of the OT. He follows (3:16) by telling Timothy that scripture is inspired and is suitable for teaching, etc. so that having both Paul’s teaching AND scripture (OT) he will be fully equipped (3:17). A few verses later (4:1-2) Paul charges Timothy to “proclaim the word . . . through teaching.”

Even the language doesn’t necessitate a SS reading. Going camping once my mom said “Take your flash light. I what you to have everything you need”. . . be fully equiped. Does that mean all I needed was my flashlight?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Further, it is difficult to see how Paul could be practicing or mandating SS to Timothy here in these verses because…
(a) The context is the transmission of the whole of Christianity both by the oral word, which Paul called a “norm” and which he ordered Timothy to guard with the help of the Spirit (2 Tim 1:12-13; see also 1 Tim 6:20), AND by the OT;

(b) elsewhere in Paul’s writings he:

(i) expressly enjoins his readers to hold to the “tradition(s)” (paradosis) they have received before he wrote to them [1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6].
Also, the verb form, paradidomi, usually translated as “deliver” or “hand on,” is used in reference to transmitting the whole faith before the letters were written [Rm 6:17 teaching “delivered”; 2 Pet 2:21 commandment “delivered”; Jude 3 the faith “delivered”].

(ii) acknowledges, affirms, and orders the process of handing on the faith orally through successive generations of believers is. [Rm 10:14-17; 1 Thess 1:8; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; 1 Cor 14:36; 2 Cor 8:16-18; Col 1:5-6; Tit 1:9] The process pre-dates and will post-date the letters, and the content is not specified.
[In connection with this Paul uses the noun *paratheke (a thing entrusted for safe keeping : a deposit : a trust) and the verb paratithemi (to entrust for safe keeping : to deposit). Paul entrusts to Timothy the charge to preach the Gospel (1 Tim 1:18) and reminds him to guard what has been entrusted to him (6:20); he repeats his injunction to guard the trust/deposit (2 Tim 1:14) as he himself has (1:12) and then further tells Timothy to entrust it to others so they can orally teach yet others (2:2). It is hard to imagine a more apt description of tradition.]

(iii) makes no mention ever that he had at this point or would in the future consign to writing all of his teaching that God wanted humanity to have or that Christianity would so be reduced for normative and authoritative transmission.

All of this teaching and practice in Paul is far more like the unified and interrelated process STC authoritatively handing on God’s word than SS.

Nowhere that I know of did Christ or the apostles speak of either tradition or the church as having authority equal to the word of God, such that new revelation, in addition to Scripture and considered to be infallible, could proceed from them.

You need to understand that this very view of T and C adding new revelation to Scripture is itself an artifact of SS. It simply rephrases SS w/o proof. You start with the word of God understood as equivalent to and coextensive with the written text of Scripture. This also just rephrases SS, and ignores the fact that biblical authors do not portray or teach that the word of God is such. Then you note that the teachings of the Church go beyond the Bible (i.e., your interpretation of the Bible alone). You conclude that this is an unwarranted addition to God’s word. Therefore we should go by the Bible alone. How can such a circular argument rationally compel rejection of STC for SS?

What Christ and the apostles do speak of and portray in the pages of the NT is the word of God being transmitted by scripture and tradition in the church. Nowhere do they speak of breaking up these two means of transmitting Gods word in and through the church which has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14) and the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16).

The idea that one should submit unconditionally to church teaching, without testing it in any way, is actually contrary to Scripture. . . . Paul expected his Galatian audience to test any preaching that purported to be the gospel and reject it, even if it came from him or an angel. The gospel itself, then, was expected to be the rule by which other preaching was to be tested. . . . He wasn’t exaggerating. He took the gospel very, very seriously. This was the man who wrote elsewhere, Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel. He indicated in another place that the gospel was entrusted to him by God, . . …

Curiously what the Galatians have as a norm according to Paul (1:8-9) is his prior oral preaching (and indirectly that of the Twelve), not a written text. And Paul’s readers read his letters in the light of his previous teaching and/or the apostolic tradition of which they are an expression. In 2 Tim 1:13 the norm again is Paul’s oral preaching. Again in 1 Cor 15:1-2 it is the oral word that they must hold fast to in order to be saved.

The dichotomy of Scripture on one hand and T and C on the other is foreign to the teaching and practice of the NT authors (the fathers and Councils too). It is an artifact resulting from having already adopted SS.

In addition, the Bereans were commended for testing what the apostles taught using Scripture. If it was wrong for them to do this, then the text would not refer to this act as noble.

Again, context please. In vv 1-3 Paul is in Thessalonica, teaching Jews, in the synagogue, about the Messiah, based on the OT. Trouble happens and he is sent off to Borea, where he is teaching Jews, in the synagogue, about the Messiah, based on the OT. And the Jews in Borea laudably examined the OT to see if his message to them about references to the Messiah in the OT is so.

For the life of me I can’t see how this constitutes a mandate for Christians to practice SS. If you told me the Gospels teach X about Jesus, where else would one go but the Gospels to determine that it was so? Yes it would be praisworthy to follow through and check.

The actual teaching and practice in Paul and Acts taken as a whole is far more continuous with STC as found in the fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the EOC, and CC than it is with SS. And there is much more of the NT to take into consideration.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve addressed this issue earlier. But just as a side note, let me say that just because someone questions what an authority states does not HAVE to mean that the root of that is pride. It could be, but not necessarily. It could also be that the person doing the questioning value his soul greatly.

I agree. I think that many people have trust problems. There is a long history of distrust among Protestants of Catholics, much of it well earned. I think people have trouble trusting Jesus, too. If people really trusted Jesus, then they would be able to trust that whatever authority He placed over them is what is needed, even if they are not infallible. The lives of the saints prove this to be true.

 If the Scriptures don't go into detail about something, then it's because it's not a detail that we need to know. We're told what we are to do in that passage: Do that in remembrance of Christ. One can do that without having to know the full details of what he meant.

This is actually an extrabiblical human tradition. There is nothing in scripture that supports such an assertion. On the contrary, if Scripture contained all the detail we needed, then there would be no need for a Church at all, so Jesus was just wasting HIs breath breathing Life into it.

They have the Scriptures themselves as the authority.

Yes and no. By forcing the Scriptures into a role they were never meant to have, they unwittingly make themselves their own authority.

Now if you say, "Protestants must still rely on their own interpretation of those Scriptures," then I say, So what? Catholics have the same problem.  They must rely on their own private interpretation of Catholic statements, documents, etc.

No, we don’t. The doctrines of the faith are very clear and straightforward. You are right that some Catholics to make private interpretations of them, they are commonly referred to as “cafeteria Catholics”. They actually reject the Teachings, and have become Protestants, ,but often don’t realize it.

You can’t ask JP2 what he meant in any given part of his writings.

I think you are confusing the various levels of authority in teaching. Not everyone a Pope writes is considered a doctrine of the faith. Popes make mistakes. The gift of infalliblity does not prevent people from making mistakes, or make them impeccable.

You can’t even ask the current pope what is meant by a particular teaching in the CCC. You have to go to a priest or bishop, but even then, you are just relying on their own interpretation of those teachings.

You are really reaching here, Koine. We have 2000 years of Tradition by which we can understand what is written. Have you ever looked at a Catechism? The footnotes are full of the documents over the millenia that contain the doctrines of the faith.

And there are some priests and bishops that are not able teachers, and do stray from the doctrines of the faith. I have heard priests say things that are outright contradictory to the faith. The Teachings of Jesus (doctrines of the faith) are infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit. The HS does not “err”.

So do Protestants: the Bible.

They wish to believe this, and act as if it were true, but the bottom line is that the Bible cannot exercise authority. What happens is that each person reading is exercising their own discernment, willpower, and perceptions. Their interpretations are subject to their own education, or lack of it, and their life experiences. This is the nature of human perception. This happens to us no matter what we read. This is one of the reasons that people find reading Shakespeare difficult. In order for it to make proper sense to them, they need to understand the language, culture, and point of the author.

  Sure there is: the Bible. Don't say, "That doesn't work, because they're all using their own private interpretation," because as I pointed out above, Catholics have the same issue.

No, we don’t. Catholics read the Bible with the mind of the Church. We can exercise private interpretation, within the boundaries of the Teaching of Jesus infallibly preserved in the Church. This prevents us from wandering away from the faith, and falling for a “different gospel” than the one delivered to the Church once for all by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

 I find this to be a common approach taken by Catholic apologists when dealing with Protestants: claim that the Protestant doesn't really understand Catholic teaching, or has not really studied the matter enough, etc.

From reading your posts in this thread, it seems clear that you do not understand the levels of authority within Catholicism, or the nature of the gift of infalliblity. Neither do most Catholics!

Trust me, I went through a period of time when I was actually pro-Catholic and wanted to believe the teachings of the RCC. I didn’t just go by hearsay of what Catholics say on internet forums. I read the Council of Trent very carefully regarding its teaching on justification, which, for me, was the most important issue.

The CC is not “Roman” Koine.

I am glad you studied the documents of Trent. However, schooling yourself on Reformation documents about justification does not necessarily make you an expert in Catholicism, or in the issue now under discussion.

I bring up those "talks of others" in order to drive home to Catholics that there is huge disagreement among Catholics about Catholic teachings, and that disagreement and confusion remain in spite of the claim to have an absolute authority to clarify things.

Ahh, but that is the very point. You see, our faith is not defined by majority rule, or even by the perceptions or opinions of groups/individuals. Our faith is handed down to us from the Apostles. Therefore, however many schismatics, heretics, ignorant or defiant Catholics there may be, none of that changes the Faith. It is One Faith, and it was whole and complete at the death of the last apostle. It was deposted “once for all” with the Church.

You are right, having authority does not prevent rebellion, defiance, disobedience, or ignorance. It also does not prevent confusion among the poorly catechized. None of these human conditions affects the Divine Faith in any way.

How do I know that you are not just another of those people who distorts Catholic teaching?

You don’t, really. Glad to know you realize it can be distorted. I hope you will keep reading your conciliar documents.

 

[Philthy]

The trouble with you, Eufrosnia, and probably every other Catholic who has responded in this thread, is that you are laboring under the illusion that you are somehow above the limitation of your own interpretation, i.e., that while I, the Protestant, must rely on my own private interpretation to understand Scripture, you, the Catholic, do not have to rely on your interpretation when doing any of these:

• understanding what the Catholic Church teaches.

There is a big difference: the Church writes in contemporary, affirmative (ie, yes or no) language to clearly communicate it’s message. It can also address directly any further need for clarification on an issue by responding to those who desire clarification. For example, the question of whether parents should have their babies baptized is answered directly and clearly by the Church in affirmative language: yes they should.
The question of whether contraception is a sin is answered directly and clearly: yes it is.

Scripture - and much of the NT Gospels in particular - was written in ancient languages, using descriptive terms, addressing foreign cultures making it often difficult to understand. It is also static in the sense that it does not change, does not explain itself and does not offer the same dialogue that can result in clear, unambiguous communication. We can’t know what Christ meant when he said “This is my body” or when he said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit”; or who John meant when he said “I saw a woman with 12 stars and the moon under her feet”. The list is endless, my friend, endless! And all the various personal interpretations that still exist and those that preceded them and those that will follow prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt. And they reveal that personal interpretation according to the theology of SS is something very different than the unchanging truths revealed by the Church.

So your claim that Catholics seeking to understand what the Church teaches labor under the same “personal interpretation” limitations that a SS adherent has when trying to understand Scripture is not at all an honest assessment.

No, the ball is still in the court of the Catholics. I’ve been sitting here on the other side of the net waiting for you all to hit the ball back, but I continue waiting. Nobody has provided me with an infallibly declared list of infallible RCC teachings, simply because none exists.

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that list essentially. It contains the intellectual side of the faith; everything we are bound to believe, bound to do, bound to refrain from doing.

That’s okay; I’ll ask the question in a different way, since it’s obvious the original question cannot be answered or is too difficult to answer. Here: One person in this thread has said that there is only one infallibly declared dogma that he knows of. Do you agree with him?

No, I can’t agree since I have no idea how many infallibly declared dogma he knows of - I don’t even know who he is. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?

 

[Filioque]

If the Scriptures don’t go into detail about something, then it’s because it’s not a detail that we need to know. We’re told what we are to do in that passage: Do that in remembrance of Christ. One can do that without having to know the full details of what he meant.

You’ve quoted Sacred Scripture over and over, but when someone offers a different conclusion than what you assert, you have not replied. Again using human interpretaion and traditions, you assert something that is not found in anything but a translation of the Scriptures which does not reflect the original Greek text.

But what Jesus said was not a simple rememberance, it was to make anmensis. Now to remember something is one thing, to make anmensis while translated rememberence is another.

At the Seder, which Jesus and those gathered were celebrating to commemorate the freedom from bondage; Jews even at the time of Jesus are taught that the participation in the rituals of Passover is not a simple recalling of events long ago, but an Amensis, or participation in the actual event. The rite of the Seder commands that one cannot consider that the Events of the Exodus are something that happened to others at another time and place, but that we too participate in them by our actions at the Seder.

If Jesus, and the inspired writers of the narrative had wanted to tell us it was a memorial, or simple recalling they would not have told us it was an Amensis. If Jesus was not God, He could not have taken the bread and wine and by His authority made it His body and blood, nor could He have commissioned others to do so. Knowing that some would not accept what He said, He also commanded, that we eat His body and drink His blood, there the scriptures use the greek term to chew on, when He said that the crowd left Him because what He said was too hard for them to accept. Is there anything else that Jesus said that we can ignore because it is too hard to accept?

Or perhaps I’ve been working on the mistaken idea that it’s not really that important to understand what Jesus was telling us, and what I glean from the Scriptures alone is what is important for me.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think ANY Protestant would deny that the Bible came to us through the church. But that is not what SS says. SS does not set out to show how the Bible came to us; it says it is the sole infallible authority for Christians on matters pertaining to faith and practice.

Yes, I have learned this here on CAF. It is very convenient that SS “assumes a canon”. That way, we can just take the authority God gave to His One Church our of the discussion. SS cannot admit that it required an authority outside of itself to create and canonize the Scriptures. This is because the question of how the canon was formed PROVES the error of SS, as do the Scriptures themselves, who clearly testify to the authority given to the Church. Nowhere does the Scripture claim the doctrine of SS, so it is, by definition, an extrabiblical human tradition.

The Catholic error is to leap to the conclusion that, just because the church was the agent through whom the Bible came to us, therefore it is the only one with the authority to interpret the Bible accurately.

Close, but not quite. The Catholic position is that the church is not an “agent”, but the living Body of Christ, of which He is the Head. She is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that maker her infallible. And yes, since the Scripture is His Word, He is the only one with the authority to interpret it correctly. He gave this authority to His Church.

 It is highly characteristic of discussions in which Protestants and Catholics discuss the church fathers.

How is that any different than debating with the Scriptures alone?

Here is an example. You used this verse:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

To support the notion of SS. You claimed that this verse says the Scriptures “fully equip” the man of faith. However this is not what the verse says.

I find that this verse is often misunderstood by those reading it. You are right, it says that scripture is inspired. Coming from God as it does it is “profitable”, and in some translations “useful”. This verse does NOT say we don’t need anything else, or that Scripture is the be all and end all of God’s revelation to man.

Next we look at what type of activities in which Scripture is profitable (useful). These activities include teaching, reproof, correction and training in rightousness. These are all parts of the Christian process of sanctification. What is the goal of all this teaching, reproving, correcting and training? That the man of God may be equipped. Scripture is useful in equipping the tasks of forming disciples.

Nowhere does it say that Scripture alone accomplishes these tasks. In fact, we find the contrary. To whom did God give these tasks?

Eph 4:10-14
10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

Jesus gave the gift of teaching and pastoring to PEOPLE, and these PEOPLE are charged with the responsibilty to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. These PEOPLE find scripture useful/profitable in the tasks of equiping the saints.

Scripture by itself is not sufficient to “fully equipt” the man of God. You need the people appointed and gifted by Jesus to equip you for the work of the ministry. You need to benefit from their use of the Scripture as they reprove, correct and teach you according to the gifts that God has established. And in the next verses he concludes:

Eph 4:14-16
We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the **whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love. **

You need it because Jesus established His Church, and He is building that Church in love. He provided the gifted people to profitably use the scriptures for the purpose of bringing us all to maturity. You need those people because that is the way Jesus set it up.

Scripture is inspired and profitable - especially in the hands of those that God has authorized to do the work of equipping the saints. Jesus did not write 27 new books of the Bible and leave them with a note that said “these writings will fully equip all who believe”. No, he created a Church, and appointed authorities, and gave gifts to that Church so that the Scripture would be profitable in their hands.

So you see, we both read the same scripture verses, but we understand them differently. You read them through the lens of the Reformation, where Catholics read them through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teaching of the Apostles infallibly preserved in the Church.

So whether it is scripture, or the fathers, or the council documents, endless debate can, and does occur.

 

[guanophore]

I can. As you just said in another post, it’s possible to read a text and understand it.

We can read what they wrote, can’t we? We are able to come to a reasonable conclusion of what they taught using grammar, knowledge of the historical backdrop of a given writing, and so on. That’s using natural reason–your own approach. Yet now not even that is enough. Don’t you see how we are not going to get anywhere?

I think you are right. Human reason will only take us so far. At some point, there has to be room for the supernatural to enter into the process. So the adherant to SS will say that each one is enlightened by the HS and has the mind of Christ, where Catholics say that the mind of Christ resides in the Church, and that His promise to lead them into “all Truth” was made to the Church. Individuals can benefit from the gift, but only insofar as we are in unity with the Church.

  We don't read a history book and then run our interpretation of every sentence in that book by a historian to see if we've grasped it right. We don't do that with every single point we read in the church fathers or in Scripture.

Right. This is why you will not find any Catholic commentary giving a verse by verse interpretation of the Scriptures. What we do is what the Bereans did. They received the Apostolic preaching with eagerness. Then they looked into the Scriptures. So we approach the Scriptures from the point of view of the Apostles and disciples that wrote them.

I’ve pointed this out to you in another thread: I don’t think your approach is correct because it overlooks the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the individual who believes. Faith does involve reason, but it does not all hang on reason, as you seem to think.

So true!

1 Cor 2:14-16
4 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.
16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

So it boils down to who has the “mind of Christ”? Catholic say that the Apostle is using the term “we” to refer to the Apostolic Church.

  Yes you can. You can consult what the entire corpus of Scripture has to say about salvation by faith. And it's possible to come up with a correct interpretation of those texts.

Yes, it is possible. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But the faith was never intended to be extracted from the pages of scripture. It was committed to PEOPLE, and Jesus gave His authority to those PEOPLE. It is much easier to come upo with the interpretation of those texts when one reads them, as the Bereans did, in the light of the Apostolic preaching. When one “consults the entire corpus of Scripture” apart from that Apostolic preaching, ,one can just as equally come up with a great many divergent theologies that contradict one another. This is what we observe in the Protestant world.

 One does not need to consult an expert for everything he reads in Scripture. The Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the Word to bring about understanding in those whom He instructs. Jesus told the Jews of His day that they could not understand what He said because His word had no place in them. This has so much more to do with the supernatural than you are making out.

I agree, however, even sincere disciples can miss the mark. The Holy Spirit does not tell one disciple a “truth” that is contradictory and mutually excluslive to what He has already revealed to the Church.